Poonam Sharma
The war in Ukraine has come to a point where it is no longer limited to Donbas battlefields or destroyed Mariupol streets. It has grown into a quintessential fight about global order, international trust, and the survival of small states in an environment where great powers determine results. Russia, led by President Vladimir Putin, demands a general settlement based on what it refers to as a “six-point security doctrine.” Ukraine, though, continues to defy, frequently turning to NATO and the United States to keep its struggle alive. Between them lies a world of distrust, disinformation, and realigning allegiances suggestive of Cold War battles.
Putin’s Six Conditions
Six hardline conditions have been set by Moscow before they will entertain any ceasefire. First, Russia wants assurances that Western sanctions do not irreparably choke its economy. Second, no foreign bases—particularly NATO bases—will be allowed on Ukrainian territory. Third, Russia wants international acknowledgment of lands that it has already annexed, namely Crimea and Donbas. Fourth, Moscow requires security guarantees that Ukraine will not serve as a springboard for anti-Russian military campaigns. Fifth, Kyiv should give up its bid to join NATO and commit to permanent neutrality. Sixth, Ukraine’s military should be limited to avoid future aggression.
Effectively, Russia is not bargaining with Ukraine but with the entire Western alliance. The six points serve the purpose of reshaping Europe’s map of security to Moscow’s benefit.
The Ukrainian Dilemma
For Ukraine, these terms translate into surrender. Kyiv blames Moscow for speaking the language of ceasefire as a strategy while building up to further offenses. President Zelensky counters that to accept Russia’s terms would leave Ukraine as a satellite state, devoid of sovereignty.
What makes things more complicated is Ukraine’s deficit of trust. Kyiv has repeatedly been accused of taking advantage of ceasefire agreements to reorganize and rearm, reminiscent of Pakistan in its protracted war against India. There are such notable similarities, writes Haslett, between Ukrainian and Pakistani tactics—both heavily depend on outside patrons, both utilize periods of truce to prepare for new fighting, and both fare poorly at credibility for peace agreements.
America’s Balancing Game
The Trump administration in the United States has dithered between hardline rhetoric and strategic ambiguity. Though Washington keeps providing ambiguous security guarantees by sending weaponry to Ukraine, there is reluctance in committing them in writing. For Trump, Ukraine is a valuable tool to use against Russia but not a cause worth risking America in a full-blown war.
This reluctance to engage reflects a fundamental reality: American global supremacy is no longer unqualified. Domestic tensions, fiscal burden, and emerging nationalism have curbed Washington’s enthusiasm for foreign entanglements. Ukraine is learning what many smaller nations already understand—great powers tend to short of waging another’s war.
Espionage, Strategy, and Ancient Lessons
The war in Ukraine has also brought back ancient war doctrines and espionage. Russian strategists claim that it is impossible to defeat an enemy without weakening him internally. Espionage, sabotage, and propaganda are no less crucial than missiles and tanks. Just as the ancient Indian epics used to instruct monarchs to disassemble adversaries by using spies and deceit, Moscow is using cyber warfare, disinformation warfare, and secret networks to undermine the will of Ukraine and divide the West.
The philosophy is straightforward: not only kill the enemy’s forces but break his cohesion, his coalitions, and his confidence.
Pakistan, Trust, and the Parallels
Most Indian analysts identify similarities between the conduct of Ukraine and the traditional duplicity of Pakistan. As Pakistan, Ukraine invokes the support of mighty allies while sabotaging trust through strategic dishonesty. Just as India has learned never to believe Islamabad promises wholeheartedly, Moscow now suspects Kyiv in the same vein. In both instances, the idea of a credible peace partner crashes due to successive betrayals.
This is not lost on Russian commentators who frequently use Pakistan as a case in point of why meaningless ceasefires without guarantees that can be enforced are pointless.
Europe’s Cautious Role
Europe is in an uneasy predicament. France, Germany, and Italy officially denounce Moscow but secretly dread the implications of the continuation of war. The cost of energy, inflation, and political exhaustion are eating away at public support for Kyiv. The European Union talks of solidarity, but in private, leaders admit there is no long-term security framework.
For Brussels, the worst nightmare is a polarized continent—a continent where Eastern Europe demands permanent confrontation and Western Europe desires compromise.
India’s Position
India has observed the Ukraine conflict with a judicious balance of realism and neutrality. New Delhi does not participate in Western sanctions against Russia but also will not openly support Moscow’s aggression. The crisis is a lesson and a warning for India. Trust is delicate, outside powers cannot always be trusted, and ultimately, national security lies in self-reliance.
Indian strategists point to how rapidly great powers change their positions. While the United States has vacillated on its commitment to Ukraine, it may vacillate on Asia too if hostilities break out with China. For New Delhi, the war in Ukraine only underlines the necessity to enhance local defense capabilities, upgrade intelligence networks, and not over-rely on any one ally.
A World at the Crossroads
The war in Ukraine is more than a local war—it is a reflection of the vulnerability of international order. Trust is in short supply, alliances are opportunistic, and the doctrine of war now contains cyber operations, propaganda, and economic coercion.
For Russia, this is a struggle to regain the status of great power. For Ukraine, it is a battle for existence. For the United States, it is a balance between deterrence and disengagement. For Europe, it is a crisis of cohesion. And for India and other emerging powers, it is a lesson in resilience and self-sufficiency.
The result of this war will not just determine Eastern Europe, but it will determine the future principles of international security. Whether peace is a negotiated outcome or one of long-term warfare, one thing is certain: the post-Cold War era is crumbling, and a new, uncharted world is on its way.
Comments are closed.